Abstract
Ontario's Resource Stewardship Agreement (RSA) process
introduced shared decision making into the management toolbox for land
use planning in Ontario's Crown forests. Within the RSA process,
resource-based tourism and forestry operators negotiate mutually
agreeable solutions to forest harvesting and tourism-use conflicts.
Policy documents were reviewed and tourism operators surveyed to
evaluate this small-scale, shared-decision-making process. The
evaluation, which was conducted during the implementation of the RSA
process, found that the process benefited forest management by including
tourism operators in forest management planning, promoting dialogue
between the two industries, and balancing power relationships. RSAs
could be improved by including more stakeholders, making the process
more transparent, and improving the negotiation process.
Resume
Le processus de l'Entente d'intendance des ressources
(EIR) de l'Ontario a integre la prise de decision partagee a la
gamme des outils de gestion relatifs a la planification de
l'utilisation des terres dans les forets de la Couronne en Ontario.
Dans le processus de l'EIR, le tourisme fonde sur les ressources et
les exploitants forestiers negocient ensemble des solutions acceptables
pour les deux parties, en regard des differends concernant la recolte de
bois et l'utilisation de la foret a des fins touristiques. Les
documents sur les politiques ont ete examines et les exploitants en
tourisme ont repondu a un sondage pour evaluer ce processus de prise de
decision partagee a petite echelle. L'evaluation, qui a ete menee
pendant la mise en oeuvre du processus de l'EIR, a revele que le
processus etait profitable en matiere de gestion de la foret en ayant
fait participer les exploitants en tourisme a la planification de la
gestion de la foret, en favorisant le dialogue entre les deux secteurs
d'activite, equilibrant ainsi la relation de pouvoir. Les EIR
pourraient etre ameliorees en faisant participer davantage
d'intervenants, en rendant le processus plus transparent et en
ameliorant le processus de negociation.
Key Words
Policy evaluation, resource management, forestry/tourism conflict,
collaborative planning
Introduction
In 2000, three Ontario government ministries signed a memorandum of
understanding with the resource-based tourism industry and forestry
industry in the province. This memorandum of understanding called for
the introduction of resource stewardship agreements (RSAs), a form of
shared decision making designed to help resolve land-use conflicts
between resource-based tourism operators and the forest industry in
Ontario's Crown forests. This paper examines and evaluates the RSA
process as an example of shared decision making, using criteria drawn
from the academic literature. This evaluative lens was chosen because
the Ontario government promotes the RSA process as a type of shared
decision making, and because of a trend within natural resource
management towards collaborative initiatives and participatory decision
making.
Tourism--Forestry Conflicts in Northern Ontario
In Ontario, land use conflicts between resource-based tourism and
forestry exist due to the disparate and conflicting uses that these two
industries often have for the same piece of Crown land. (1) The
resource-based tourism industry, which is composed mostly of fishing and
hunting lodges or outposts, depends on a pristine environment, a
high-quality fishery, unpolluted water bodies, remoteness, and solitude
to attract clientele (Hunt et al. 2000). However, active logging
operations--which may produce noise and pollution, destroy fish and
wildlife habitat, and have negative effects on the aesthetics of a
region--conflict with these needs (McKercher 1992). In addition,
forest-access roads, constructed to facilitate the removal of harvested
timber, allow access by motorized recreationists that can spoil the
feeling of remoteness and can stress a fishery (McKercher 1992, Gunn and
Sein 2000).
In 2000, the Tourism and Forestry Memorandum of Understanding (MOU)
was signed between Ontario's resource-based tourism industry, the
forestry industry, and three Ontario government ministries (OMNR 2001).
The MOU calls for the two industries to recognize the factors that are
important for their respective successes and to respect these needs.
RSAs are the operational tool of this MOU. They are voluntary,
business-to-business agreements negotiated between a single sustainable
forest licensee (forest company) and a single licensed resource-based
tourism operation (OMNR 2001). Each RSA sets out a specific and detailed
plan for forest harvesting and for protection of tourism values in areas
of Crown forest where both parties have interests. (2) These
prescriptions are then incorporated into the forest management plans for
the area, upon approval by the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources
(OMNR 2001).
Background on Shared Decision Making
The RSA process, which involves resource-based tourism stakeholders
in the management of Ontario's Crown forests, is part of a broader
trend toward increased use of collaborative initiatives in natural
resource management. Collaborative initiatives include such processes as
shared decision making, alternative dispute resolution, consensus-based
processes, participatory democracy and the mediation model of planning
(Susskind et al. 2003, Gunton and Day 2003). The benefits of
collaborative initiatives are numerous and include the perception of
fairness, greater acceptance of and compliance with the resulting
decision, increased confidence in decision-makers, and increased trust
in the process (Moote et al. 1997, Lawrence et al. 1997, Duffy et al.
1996). Shared decision making is a specific kind of collaborative
initiative whereby stakeholders who may be affected by the outcomes of a
decision are empowered to jointly come to a mutually agreeable (usually
consensus-based) decision along with those that traditionally have
decision-making authority (BC CORE 1996, Frame et al. 2004, Gunton and
Day 2003). A good shared-decision-making process endeavors to ensure
that the concerns of all stakeholders are resolved fairly and that the
outcomes accommodate the interests of all involved (Williams et al.
1998, Susskind et al. 2003, Gunton and Day 2003). Shared-decision-making
processes often result in creative solutions, offer joint gains, produce
longer lasting agreements, and resolve underlying conflicts (Susskind et
al. 2003, Duffy et al. 1996, Innes and Booher 1999). In conjunction with
resolving disputes, shared decision making can support the development
of trust, improve communication, foster positive relationships, and
promote learning among stakeholders (Moote et al. 1997, Susskind et al.
2003, Duffy et al. 1996, Innes and Booher 1999).
Components of a good shared-decision-making process include: a
definite goal or purpose, participation by all affected stakeholders,
information exchange and communication among the stakeholders,
organisational support, respect and balanced power among stakeholders,
interest-based negotiation, and consensus-based decisions (Schuett et
al. 2001, Moote et al. 1997). In addition, the resulting plan or outcome
should be technically feasible to implement and should maximize the
gains to society (Susskind and Cruikshank 1987).
Evaluating the RSA process
Although each RSA negotiation involves only two parties, the RSA
process represents a significant departure from traditional approaches
to forest management in Ontario, in that it directly involves a
stakeholder other than the forest industry in early decisions about
forest management plans. Accordingly, it is reasonable to assess how
this process compares with recognized standards for shared
decision-making.
Choosing an evaluative framework
The appropriate perspective for an evaluation and the best criteria
to use depend on the type of policy or program being evaluated and the
goals of the evaluation. Because the RSA process was designed to help
the tourism industry protect its business values on Crown land, this
study was conducted from the perspective of this industry. Using this
perspective, the RSA process was compared to stated goals and compared
to standards from academic theory. The key questions are as follows:
1. Are the goals set by policy makers and other interested parties
for the Tourism and Forestry Industry Memorandum of Understanding being
achieved?
2. Based on shared-decision-making theory, as well as collaborative
theory, participatory democracy theory, and other research presented in
the academic literature, could the RSA process be considered an
equitable, efficient, and effective process?
Two sets of goals were used in the evaluation: the goals listed in
the Tourism and Forestry Industry Memorandum of Understanding and a set
of goals for the RSA process put forward by the Northern Ontario Tourist
Outfitters Association (NOTO) (NOTO 2003). Two sets of goals were used
to help prevent bias associated with the policy writer's definition
of the problem and in an attempt to circumvent the problem of vague
goals. NOTO's goals were chosen because NOTO is Ontario's
resource-based tourism industry's largest representative and,
therefore, NOTO's goals for the RSA process are most likely to be
representative of the tourism industry as a whole.
The RSA process is also compared to "best practices"
criteria from the shared-decision-making literature, collaborative
theory, and participatory-democracy theory. The decision to evaluate
against shared-decision-making theory, collaborative theory, and
participatory democracy theory was based on three key points. First, the
Ontario government promotes the Tourism and Forestry Industry Memorandum
of Understanding and the RSA process as a form of shared decision making
(Browne 2006). Second, the core of the RSA process is a negotiated
agreement between the forest industry and resource-based tourism
operators, a stakeholder group that has not traditionally had direct
input into the forest management planning process. Third, there is a
trend in natural resource management towards participatory approaches to
government decision making. If the goal of resource managers is to have
more participatory approaches to management, then new policies like the
RSA process should be evaluated against standards for such processes.
Criteria for Evaluating a Shared Decision-Making Process
The criteria for evaluating the RSA process are drawn from work in
land-use planning theory, negotiation theory, and policy-evaluation
theory. The 56 criteria chosen are an amalgamation of criteria proposed
by Innes and Booher (1999), Wondolleck (1988), Frame et al. (2004),
Lawrence et al. (1997), Smith and McDonough (2001) and Conley and Moote
(2003).
Innes and Booher (1999) provide a list of process and outcome
criteria they deem essential to a good consensus building process. Their
criteria are derived from both empirical research and practical
experience within the environmental planning field and reflect the
principles of complexity science and communicative rationality.
Wondolleck (1988) lists five key attributes that should be present in a
land-use decision-making process. Her attributes come from years of
studying national forest planning processes used by the United States
Forest Service. Frame et al. (2004) list a comprehensive set of fourteen
process criteria and eleven outcome criteria they used to evaluate the
success of collaboration in British Columbia's Land and Resource
Management Planning process. Their criteria are derived mostly from the
collaborative planning and evaluation literature. Lawrence et al. (1997)
and Smith and McDonough (2001) conducted research on procedural justice
and how it could be incorporated into natural resource decision making.
Both sets of authors list Leventhal et al.'s (1980) criteria for
ensuring fairness when public participation is included in natural
resource decision making. Building on the concept of procedural justice,
Smith and McDonough (2001) develop a list of attributes they deem
necessary for a natural resource decision-making process to be perceived
as fair. These attributes are developed based on a study in which
participants in the Northern Lower Michigan Ecosystem Management Project
were asked their opinion regarding the fairness of natural resource
agency decisions. Finally, Conley and Moote (2003) provide a list of
typical criteria that are used for evaluating collaborative natural
resource management programs. Their criteria (see below) come from
several authors including Blumberg (1999), Born and Genskow (2000),
D'Estree and Colby (2000), Innes (1999), KenCairn (1998), and the
Lead Partnership Group (2000).
Data Collection and Analysis
Data used to evaluate the RSA process were obtained in two ways: a
mail survey of tourism operators and a review of published and
unpublished documents related to the RSA process. The mail survey
provided the opinions of RSA process participants, while the review of
published documentation on the RSA process provided key technical
information, and a review of unpublished information from government,
academic, and industry sources provided additional information.
The mail survey targeted those owning a resource-based tourism
business in northern Ontario. The survey was sent to a total of 444
resource-based tourism businesses that had the potential to be involved
in the RSA process. To maximize the response rate, multiple mail
contacts were made with each operator, an approach suggested by Dillman
(2000). The mail survey was conducted in March and April of 2005. At
that time, two rounds of RSA agreements, those required for 2004 and
2005 forest management plans, should have been completed, while
operators with 2006 and possibly 2007 plans would have gained some
experience with the process. The questionnaire asked participants their
opinions on whether the RSA process was achieving the evaluative
criteria. To minimize questionnaire length, the questions focused on
those criteria that could not easily be evaluated from a review of
policy documents and related literature alone. A total of 116 operators
returned completed questionnaires for a response rate of 26%. Of these
116 operators, 61 had commenced participation in the RSA process.
Seventeen operators had signed one or more RSAs.
For the second part of the RSA evaluation, an exhaustive library
and internet search was conducted to collect available published and
unpublished documentation on the RSA process. This included official
policy manuals and legislation, as well as unpublished government,
industry, and academic reports. These documents were reviewed to find
information pertaining to each of the evaluative criteria. This
information was then incorporated with the survey responses to establish
a rating for each criterion. In addition, one researcher attended an RSA
summit sponsored by NOTO, held in November 2004. The researcher
documented first hand the experiences of tourism operators, forest
industry representatives, and agency officials with the RSA process.
The responses of tourism operators to the questionnaire were
analysed using basic descriptive statistics. Based on these responses,
and on the review of the RSA policy documents, each criterion was
assigned a qualitative rating of 'met', 'somewhat
met', 'neutral', or 'not met'. For a criterion
evaluated solely on questionnaire responses, the rating was determined
based on the mean score of all respondents on a 5 category response
scale, where an 'agree' was valued at +2.0 and a
'disagree' was valued at -2.0. If the mean response score was
greater than +1.5 the criterion was considered 'met'. It was
considered 'somewhat met' between +0.51 and +1.5,
'neutral' between -0.5 and +0.5 and 'not met' if the
mean response score was less than -0.5. Where there was pertinent policy
information, as well as questionnaire response data, the criterion was
rated using a combination of the two sources. For criteria where the use
of participants' opinions was impractical, ratings were assigned
using the researchers' best judgement based on the review of the
RSA policy documents.
Study Limitations
This study has several limitations. First, only the opinions of the
tourism operators were investigated and therefore the results reflect
only the views of one set of stakeholders. A future study might seek to
assess the opinions of the forestry industry as well as the opinions of
other users of the Crown land. Second, this study examined the RSA
process in its infancy. By the study date of spring 2005, less than half
of the forest management plans in Northern Ontario had incorporated
RSAs. Therefore, the results are preliminary. Respondents' views
may vary with increased experience with RSAs. Despite these limitations,
the study provides a comprehensive evaluation of a new collaborative
process in forest management planning that explicitly includes
resource-based tourism operators. By focusing on the tourism
operators' perspective of the process, the evaluation reflects the
opinions of the primary audience for which the process is designed.
Results and Discussion
Policy Goal Evaluation
The RSA process is meeting some of its goals at this point in
implementation. The RSA process somewhat met three goals and received a
neutral rating on two additional goals (Table 1). The remaining four
goals could not be evaluated because they either pertained primarily to
the forest sector, which was not surveyed, or it was too early in the
process to assess whether they have been met. Although it appears to be
too early in the implementation of the RSA process to definitively
evaluate goals achievement, it should be noted that to date the RSA
process is not failing to meet any of the policy goals.
Best Practices Criteria Evaluation
The evaluation of the RSA process with respect to best practices
criteria from shared-decision-making theory, collaborative theory,
participatory democracy theory, and other research presented in the
academic literature revealed both strengths and weaknesses (Table 2).
Thirty-one criteria were rated as 'met' or 'somewhat
met', 14 were rated as 'neutral' while eight were rated
as 'not met'. Three criteria were given an
'undetermined' rating due to insufficient data. Below we group
and discuss the evaluative criteria by areas of strength and areas for
potential improvement.
Strengths
Inclusion of Tourism
Most of the surveyed resource-based tourism operators are satisfied
with the outcomes of the RSA process and view their involvement as a
positive experience. Fifty-four percent of respondents who had commenced
participation in the RSA process felt their most recent RSA was
worthwhile, 50% felt that their participation in the RSA process will
make a difference in the forest management plan and 76% believed that
the benefits of the RSA process outweigh the costs. Three-quarters of
the respondents who had signed an RSA were satisfied with their most
recent agreement. Prior to the development of the RSA process, there was
little tourism involvement in forest management planning in Ontario and
a tourism stakeholder was not required to be a part of two key
participatory forest management processes: the forest management
planning team and the local citizens' committee (Hunt and Haider
2001). In 1998, less than 20% of resource-based tourism operators
surveyed by Hunt et al. (2000) were satisfied with timber-harvesting
policies and lake-access (road) restrictions. Current research into
shared decision making (e.g. Moote et al. 1997, Susskind et al. 2003),
predicts that the very fact that tourism operators are now formally
included within the forest management planning process should result in
greater satisfaction with the outcomes.
Increased Dialogue, Reduced Conflict
The RSA process brings the tourism and forestry industry together
and encourages the parties to discuss their respective needs and to
cooperate with regard to operations on Crown land. Research shows that
having parties discuss their issues early in a process can reduce the
magnitude of any conflicts and prevent delays in decision implementation
associated with appeals (Moote et al. 1997, Susskind et al. 2003).
The RSA process also helps improve or maintain positive
relationships between parties. Thirty-three percent of respondents who
had commenced an RSA indicated that their relationship with the forest
industry improved as a result of the RSA process while only five percent
indicated a deterioration in their relationship. Where conflicts do
arise, the RSA process provides the capacity for dispute resolution
between the tourism and forestry industries. The RSA's emphasis on
getting adversarial parties to discuss their issues will likely result
in a reduced number of appeals of the final forest management plans.
The exchange of information and ideas between parties as part of
the RSA dialogue also resulted in learning and has produced innovative
solutions to problems. Thirty-seven percent of respondents who had
commenced an RSA indicated that because of the RSA negotiation process
they were able to develop innovative solutions to their land use
problems. By learning from, and understanding, each other, the two
industries can design prescriptions for forest management that are
mutually agreeable and they can be united in presenting these
prescriptions to the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources (OMNR) and to
the public for review. By encouraging these two major forest
stakeholders to negotiate prior to introducing other stakeholders into
the process, there is a better chance that a solution agreeable to both
the tourism and forestry industries will be reached.
Commitment to Process and Implementation
Most respondents (93%) who had commenced an RSA felt the issues
dealt with by the RSA process are important for themselves and the
forest industry, and that the RSA process is a good way to resolve their
problems with respect to forest management planning (88%). This belief
in the process is an important first step in making the process a
success. If issues are not deemed as important by parties, or if parties
do not feel a process will help resolve their problems, they are
unlikely to be interested in participating.
To be effective, agreements must not only be negotiated, but also
be successfully implemented and enforced. Most operators who have signed
an RSA (84%) are optimistic their RSA agreements will be successfully
implemented. Supporting this opinion is the fact that parts of an RSA
that are approved as part of a forest management plan become legally
binding and must be implemented. This presence of legal procedures to
ensure implementation helps legitimize the process.
Principled Negotiation, Respect, and Trust
Many procedures have been developed to ensure that parties
undertake negotiation seriously and treat each other with respect. Half
of responding tourism operators believed that RSAs are being negotiated
in good faith. Sixty-three percent of operators who have commenced an
RSA believe that the process creates incentives for cooperation and
collaboration. This is a vital component of the process as relationships
developed during the RSA process could help the tourism and forestry
industries cope with future problems associated with their mutual
dependence on Ontario's Crown lands.
Balanced Distribution of Power
The RSA process uses policy and regulations to reduce an historical
power imbalance between the tourism and forestry industries. A major
source of power in a negotiation is determined by the parties' best
alternative to a negotiated agreement (BATNA). RSAs--along with their
parent document, the Tourism and Forestry Industry Memorandum of
Understanding--reduce the forest industry's BATNA. Under this
policy, the forest industry's BATNA is to risk having the OMNR
refuse to approve their forest management plan and thus delay timber
harvesting. The tourism industry's BATNA does not change; it can
still rely on the protection afforded by existing ecological guidelines.
This reduction of the forest industry's BATNA is important to
ensuring the success of the RSA process.
Although the RSA process reduces the power of the forest industry,
there remains a perception by tourism operators that the forest industry
retains most of the power in the tourism-forestry relationship. This is
discussed below. Although unequal distribution of power in a
shared-decision-making process is not necessarily a fatal flaw (Frame et
al. 2004), suggestions for further reducing the power imbalance are
presented below.
Costs versus Benefits
This study did not complete a comprehensive analysis of the
benefit-cost ratio for the RSA process, assess the costs to the forestry
industry, or assess the costs incurred by the provincial government in
designing and implementing the RSA process. However, over three-quarters
of respondents believe the benefits of the RSA process outweigh the
costs.
Potential Areas of Improvement within the RSA Process
Inclusive Representation
Under the RSA process not all parties that are potentially affected
by or that have an interest in any RSA that may be signed are given the
opportunity to participate in designing the agreement. Shared
decision-making processes should, by definition, encourage the
involvement of all the stakeholders that have the potential to be
affected by the outcomes of the process. By including more stakeholders,
the RSA process could become more democratic, would ensure a greater
chance that the resulting outcome will endure unchallenged, and could
result in more innovative agreements. The process would also be more
likely to produce a just outcome that serves the common good. Including
more stakeholders in RSA negotiations could eliminate the current need
for final approval by the OMNR.
One stakeholder group that should be considered for inclusion in
RSA negotiations is local recreationists. Recreationists (anglers,
hunters, campers) from northern Ontario communities may be greatly
affected by management prescriptions for forest harvesting and for
forest access roads. Likewise, local recreationists are likely to
dictate the success of attempts on the part of the forest and tourism
industries to retain remoteness while still allowing forest harvesting.
Over 60% of resource-based tourism operators surveyed by Hunt et al.
(2000) in 1998 believed that road-based recreationists would negatively
affect their operations within five years. Similarly, over 60% of remote
operators had received either 'several' or 'many'
complaints from guests regarding recreationists accessing water bodies
by non-fly-in means during the previous five years (Hunt et al. 2000).
Including local recreationists at the RSA negotiating table could
generate the knowledge and insight necessary to resolve problems
associated with access by this group.
Transparency
Parties to an RSA are under no obligation to share the results of
their agreement, except where provisions will be incorporated into a
forest management plan. Ensuring the transparency of the RSA process,
that is making the results of the agreements available to all that are
interested in them, is a means of ensuring a fair and democratic
process. It is possible that if RSAs were open to public scrutiny, the
need for the OMNR to change the resulting agreements would be reduced.
Transparency would also help ensure RSAs are negotiated using a
consistent interpretation of the MOU, and that both the forestry and
tourism industries are being treated equally, province-wide.
Equal Opportunity, Equal Resources and Effective Process Management
Although the RSA process uses policy and regulations to reduce an
historical power imbalance between the tourism and forestry industries,
a few adjustments could be made within the scope of the RSA process to
further shift power away from the forest industry and improve process
effectiveness. Providing training in interest-based negotiation and
providing a neutral facilitator can help reduce power imbalances between
parties (Frame et al. 2004). Interest-based negotiation is a technique
that calls for negotiating parties to separate the problem from the
people; to resolve problems based on parties' interests, not on
prefabricated positions; and to invent solutions for mutual gain (BC
CORE 1996). The main benefit of interest-based negotiation, as opposed
to traditional means of conflict resolution, is that it promotes
'win-win' solutions (BC CORE 1996). Having neutral
facilitators present at the negotiating table can help overcome an
uneven balance of power and can help promote fairness by monitoring the
interaction of negotiating parties and intervening where necessary, and
by helping to ensure a common level of understanding (BC CORE 1996).
Policy managers should consider having an independent third party,
instead of the forest industry, conduct the management and
administrative functions of the RSA process. This would also help
disperse some of the power away from the forestry industry. Such
adjustments should help reduce conflict in adversarial RSAs and could
give smaller tourism operations more confidence when negotiating with a
multinational forestry corporation.
Enforcement and Deterrents
No land or resource management strategy that involves restrictions
on use can be expected to succeed without proper enforcement. This
survey asked respondents if RSAs would be unnecessary if there was
better enforcement of the land use access restrictions that have already
been put in place. Fifty-six percent of responding operators agreed or
somewhat agreed with this statement, indicating that there is concern
about Ontario's ability to enforce access restrictions on Crown
lands. Attendees at the NOTO RSA Summit also mentioned enforcement as
one of the problems affecting the management of remote areas and listed
it as a problem hampering the effectiveness of the RSA process
(Bioforest 2005).
While it is expensive to monitor a large land base like Northern
Ontario, some of the money designated for the RSA process might be put
to better use enforcing access restrictions. No matter how creative the
solutions that emanate from the RSA process, they will only be effective
if there is adequate enforcement.
Perceived Bias of Decision Makers towards the Forest Industry
Several respondents felt that forest management officials in
northern Ontario had an allegiance with the forest industry. For
example, one operator commented; "No matter what, the forest
company always WINS," while another stated; "Employees'
attitudes within MNR must improve! Forestry [operators] know it [that
the OMNR will support them] and know they do not have to budge."
Other respondents expressed concern that the Ontario government does not
really care about resource-based tourism as an industry. One respondent
commented, "[The] RSA process would not be required if tourism
values were being protected or considered an asset by the government of
Ontario. They do not look at remote tourism as an industry, rather as an
annoyance affecting fiber extraction." Another respondent stated;
"Until the MNR realizes that standing trees have a ... value [that
is] equally important, all tourism businesses in the presence of logging
[will] continue to struggle."
Unless corrected, this perceived bias of the OMNR could have a
detrimental impact on the success of the RSA process. The RSA process
uses policy and regulations to encourage the tourism and forestry
industries to negotiate with regards to their shared use of Crown lands.
If the forest industry perceives OMNR as sympathetic to their needs,
there may not be the incentive for them to enter and remain in RSA
negotiations. At the same time, some tourism operators may be reluctant
to participate if they feel that the OMNR favours the forest industry.
The Role of the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources
The OMNR can veto, or amend, RSA recommendations they feel are not
consistent with the OMNR's mandate of conserving and managing
Ontario's public lands and resources for all citizens (OMNR 2001).
Eight respondents expressed concern regarding the power of the OMNR in
the RSA process. The following two comments are representative:
"[I] think the government inhibits better relations by establishing
regulations that sometimes represent roadblocks" and "I have a
problem with the MNR coming in and changing the plans we made."
Indeed the RSA process could be irrelevant if the OMNR exercises its
veto power over all decisions pertaining to forest management
prescriptions.
Practicality of Implementing Improvements
It may not be feasible to implement all of the suggested
improvements to the RSA process because of the small-scale nature of the
process. For example, to maximize the benefits of inclusive
representation we recommend that as many affected stakeholders as
possible should be allowed to participate. However, the small scale of
each RSA means that the potential number of RSAs to be negotiated is
large and it might not be practical for all stakeholder groups to
participate in every RSA process.
Indeed the RSA process may be too small scale, with too narrow a
mandate to make full use of shared decision making. A true shared
decision-making process requires extensive input and commitment from a
diverse set of stakeholders. The RSA process simply sets out to resolve
business-to-business conflicts between the forest industry and the
tourism industry in Northern Ontario. While this is an important problem
to resolve, there are other stakeholders and other conflicts occurring
on Ontario's Crown land that have the potential to impact both the
forestry industry and the tourism industry. This process does nothing to
voice or honor their conflicts. While it would be beneficial to include
more stakeholders (particularly recreationists) and widen the mandate of
RSAs, inclusionary planning should also be conducted at a broader scale.
Conclusion
The RSA process is one of Ontario's first experiments with a
participant-based approach to forest management. This evaluation shows
that the RSA process appears to be a positive move in forest management.
The process is partially meeting two out of the three policy mission
statement goals evaluated here. In addition, when compared to the shared
decision making evaluative criteria, the process met or somewhat met 31
evaluative criteria; only eight criteria were not met.
Benefits of the process include greater involvement of the tourism
industry within forest management planning in Ontario, the ability to
get parties communicating with each other, and the ability to balance
some of the power of the forestry industry. Areas for potential
improvement are also apparent. To make the RSA process more democratic,
more likely to be in the public interest, and to ensure an enduring
outcome, more stakeholders should be included and the process should be
more transparent. In addition the provision of a neutral facilitator and
training in interest-based negotiation could help mitigate power
imbalances, perceived or otherwise.
Although these suggestions for improvements to the RSA process
would help to improve the fairness of the process, in practice, some of
them may be difficult for such a small-scale process. Forest management
officials in Ontario should also consider implementing shared decision
making at a broader scale of forest management.
Acknowledgements
We would like to thank SSHRC for funding support for this research
and the anonymous referees for their helpful suggestions.
References
Bioforest. 2005. Summary of the Forestry and Tourism Resource
Stewardship Agreement Summit. North Bay, ON: Northern Ontario Tourist
Outfitters Association.
[Accessed July
27, 2005.]
Blumberg, L. 1999. Preserving the Public Trust. Forum for Applied
Research and Public Policy 4(2): 89-93.
Born, S.M., and K.D. Genskow. 2000. The Watershed Approach: An
Empirical Assessment of Innovation in Environmental Management.
Washington, DC: National Academy of Public Administration.
British Columbia. Commission on Resources and Environment (BC
CORE). 1996. Strategic Land Use Planning Source Book. Victoria, B.C.:
Queen's Printer.
Browne, Sarah A. 2006. Engaging the Tourism Industry in Forest
Management Planning: An Evaluation of Ontario's Resource
Stewardship Agreement Process. Unpublished Master's Thesis.
Burnaby, B.C.: Simon Fraser University.
Conley, A., and M.A. Moote. 2003. Evaluating Collaborative Natural
Resource Management. Society and Natural Resources 16: 371-386.
d'Estree, T.P., and B.G. Colby. 2000. Guidebook for Analyzing
Success in Environmental Conflict Resolution Cases. Fairfax, VA:
Institute for Conflict Analysis and Resolution. George Mason University.
Dillman, D.A. 2000. Mail and Internet Surveys: The Tailored Design
Method. 2nd ed. New York: J. Wiley.
Duffy, D.M., M. Roseland, and Thomas I. Gunton. 1996. A Preliminary
Assessment of Shared Decision-Making in Land Use and Natural Resource
Planning. Environments 23(2): 1-16.
Frame, Tanis M., Thomas I. Gunton, and J.C. Day. 2004. The Role of
Collaboration in Environmental Management: An Evaluation of Land and
Resource Planning in British Columbia. Journal of Environmental Planning
and Management 47(1): 59-82.
Gunn, J.M., and R. Sein. 2000. Effects of Forestry Roads on
Reproductive Habitat and Exploitation of Lake Trout (Salvenlinus
namaycush) in Three Experimental Lakes. Canadian Journal of Fisheries
and Aquatic Science 57(Sup. 2): 97-104.
Gunton, Thomas. I., and J.C. Day. 2003. The Theory and Practice of
Collaborative Planning in Resource and Environmental Management.
Environments 31(2): 5-19.
Hunt, Len M., and Wolfgang Haider. 2001. Fair and Effective
Decision Making in Forest Management Planning. Society and Natural
Resources 14: 873-887.
Hunt, Len M, Wolfgang Haider, and Michelle Johnson. 2000. Ontario
Resource Based Tourism Operators and Forest Management: Highlights of an
Operator Survey. CNFER Technical Report. TR-005. Thunder Bay, ON:
Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources.
Innes, Judith E. 1999. Evaluating Consensus Building. In The
Consensus Building Handbook: A Comprehensive Guide to Reaching
Agreement, L. Susskind, S. McKearnan, and J. Thomas-Larmer, eds.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, pp. 631-675.
Innes, Judith E., and David E. Booher. 1999. Consensus Building and
Complex Adaptive Systems: A Framework for Evaluating Collaborative
Planning. Journal of the American Planning Association 65(4): 412-423.
KenCairn, B. 1998. Criteria for Evaluating Community-Based
Conservation/Natural Resources Partnership Initiatives. In A Report from
Troutdale: Community-Based Strategies in Forest Stewardship and
Sustainable Economic Development. San Francisco, CA: Consultative Group
on Biological Diversity, pp. 34-40.
Lawrence, R.L., S.E. Daniels, and G.H. Stankey. 1997. Procedural
Justice and Public Involvement in Natural Resource Decision Making.
Society and Natural Resources 10(6): 577-589.
Lead Partnership Group. 2000. The Lead Partnership Group Identifies
Principles of Community- Based Forestry. Lead Partnership Group
Newsletter IV(1): 1-2.
Leventhal, G.S., J. Karuza, Jr., and W.R. Fry. 1980. Beyond
Fairness: A Theory of Allocation Preferences. In Justice and Social
Interaction, G. Mikula, ed. New York: Springer-Verlag, pp. 167-218.
McKercher, Bob. 1992. Tourism as a Conflicting Land Use. Annals of
Tourism Research 19:467-481.
Moote, M.A., M.P McClaran, and D.K. Chickering. 1997. Theory in
Practice: Applying Participatory Democracy Theory to Public Land
Planning. Environmental Management 21 (6): 877-889.
Northern Ontario Tourist Outfitters Association (NOTO). 2003.
Excerpt from MTR/NOTO RSA Funding Proposal for Fiscal Year
2004-2005--Benefits and Impacts of the Process. Unpublished document.
North Bay, ON: Northern Ontario Tourist Outfitters Association.
Ontario. Ministry of Natural Resources (OMNR). 2001. Tourism and
Forestry Industry Memorandum of Understanding: Guide to Resource
Stewardship Agreements. Toronto, ON: Queen's Printer for Ontario.
Schuett, M.A., S.W. Selin, and D.S. Carr. 2001. Making it Work:
Keys to Successful Collaboration in Natural Resource Management.
Environmental Management 27(4): 587-593.
Smith, P.D., and M.H. McDonough. 2001. Beyond Public Participation:
Fairness in Natural Resource Decision Making. Society and Natural
Resources 14: 239-249.
Susskind, Lawrence, and Jeffrey Cruikshank. 1987. Breaking the
Impasse. Consensual Approaches to Resolving Public Disputes. New York:
Basic Books.
Susskind, Lawrence, M. Van der Wansem, and A. Ciccareli. 2003.
Mediating Land Use Disputes in the United States: Pros and Cons.
Environments 31(2): 39-58.
Williams, P.W., R.W. Penrose, and S. Hawkes. 1998. Shared Decision
Making in Tourism Land Use Planning. Annals of Tourism Research 25(4):
860-889.
Wondolleck, Julia M. 1988. Public lands--Conflict and Resolution:
Managing National Forest Disputes. New York: Plenum Press.
Sarah Browne has a Master's degree in Resource and
Environmental Management from Simon Fraser University. Her research
interests are on the social side of resource management, specifically
public/stakeholder involvement, mechanisms to aid policy development,
and resource based tourism. Sarah is currently working as a Social
Science Analyst at the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources'
Centre for Northern Forest Ecosystem Research.
Murray Rutherford is an Assistant Professor in the School of
Resource and Environmental Management at Simon Fraser University. He is
a policy scientist and planner whose research focuses on policy analysis
and evaluation, ecosystem-based management, and human values and
attitudes toward nature and the conservation of biological diversity. He
can be contacted at mbr@sfu.ca
Thomas Gunton is a professor in the School of Resource and
Environmental Management and Director of the Resource and Environmental
Planning Program at Simon Fraser University. He has held numerous senior
positions in government including Assistant Deputy Minister of Energy
and Mines for the government of Manitoba and Deputy Minister of
Environment, Lands, and Parks for the government of British Columbia.
His research focuses on environmental mediation and dispute resolution
and resource and environmental planning. He can be contacted at
tgunton@shaw.ca
(1) Eighty-seven percent of Ontario's land mass (937,000 km2)
is Crown land (land that is controlled and administered by the
provincial government). The majority of this Crown land is located in
northern Ontario where the tourism and forestry industries have
potentially conflicting interests (OMNR 2004).
(2) The area covered by an individual resource stewardship
agreement varies and depends primarily on the number of establishments
owned by the tourism operator, the size of the forest management area,
and on the proposed forest harvesting plans. For one RSA presented as an
example at the Northern Ontario Tourist Outfitters Association's
RSA summit, the area covered by the agreement was approximately 40 km by
80 km.
Table 1. The Rating of the RSA Process on Each of the Goals Posited in
the Tourism and Forestry Industry Memorandum of Understanding and on
Each of the Goals Suggested by the Northern Ontario Tourist Outfitters
Association
Goals posited in the Tourism and Forestry Industry
Rating Memorandum of Understanding
somewhat met Allow the resource-based tourism and forestry industries
in Ontario to coexist
neutral Allow the resource-based tourism industry in Ontario to
prosper
undetermined Allow the forestry industry in Ontario to prosper
somewhat met The industries [are to] negotiate in good faith
Goals proposed by the Northern Ontario Tourism Outfitters
Association
undetermined Reductions in conflict and delays related to environmental
impact assessments
undetermined Enhancement of wood supply (timber)
undetermined Maintenance of tourism business values and employment
neutral Encouragement of industry investment
somewhat met Improved communications
Table 2. Ratings for Academic 'Best Practices' Criteria
Rating Process Criteria
Purpose and Incentives
met The process is driven by a purpose/vision and task that
are real, practical and shared by the group.
met Parties believe that a collaborative process offers the
best opportunity for addressing the issues, as opposed to
traditional processes.
somewhat met Process provides incentives to participate and work
towards an agreement.
Inclusive Representation
not met All parties that are affected by, or that have an interest
in any agreement reached are given a chance to
participate. This includes parties needed to successfully
implement the agreement and parties who could undermine it
if not involved in the process.
not met The process must incorporate the values held by different
stakeholders.
Voluntary Participation and Commitment
neutral Parties participate voluntarily. Participants remain free
to pursue other avenues if this process does not address
their interests.
somewhat met All parties are supportive of the process and committed to
invest the time and resources necessary to make it work.
Self-Design
somewhat met The parties self-design the process, including the
mandate, agenda and issues, to suit the individual needs
of that process and its participants.
somewhat met All parties have an equal opportunity to participate in
designing the process.
Clear Ground Rules
somewhat met There is a clear, written plan of action.
not met The process is open, accessible and transparent.
neutral The process is consistent between persons and across time.
Equal Opportunity and Resources
neutral All participants have the resources to participate
meaningfully. This means consideration is given to
providing training on consensus processes and negotiating
skills, and adequate and fair access to all relevant
information and expertise.
not met The process provides opportunity for equal and effective
participation by all parties, by providing equal
distribution of power.
Principled Negotiation and Respect / Trust
somewhat met The process operates according to the conditions of
principled negotiation including mutual respect, trust and
understanding.
somewhat met The process provides incentives for cooperation and
collaboration in a problem-solving manner, rather than for
continued adversarial behaviour.
somewhat met Participants demonstrate acceptance of, understanding of,
and respect for the diverse values, interests, and
knowledge of the other parties involved in the process.
Effective Process Management
somewhat met The process is managed effectively by providing a
project/process plan, coordination and communication,
information management, and support to ensure participants
are getting the resources required to participate
effectively.
neutral Neutral process staff are available to assist participants
if they need assistance
not met The process is co-ordinated and managed in a neutral
manner.
Accountability
somewhat met Mechanisms are in place to ensure the interests of the
broader public are represented in the process and final
agreement.
neutral The public is kept informed on the development and outcome
of the process.
somewhat met Participants are empowered by and effectively speak for
the interests they represent.
Flexible, Adaptive, Creative
neutral Flexibility is designed into the process to allow for
adaptation and creativity in problem solving.
met The process provides opportunities for joint fact-finding
by affected groups; allows issues and questions to be
raised early in the process.
somewhat met Feedback is incorporated into the process such that it can
evolve as the parties become more familiar with the
issues, the process, and each other, or to accommodate
changing circumstances.
High Quality Information
somewhat met The process provides participants with sufficient,
appropriate, accurate, and timely information, along with
the expertise and tools to incorporate the information
into the decision-making process.
somewhat met Uses information of many types from various sources and
assures agreement on its meaning.
Time Limits
somewhat met Realistic milestones and deadlines are established and
managed throughout the process.
neutral Milestones focus and energize the parties, marshal key
resources, and mark progress. However, sufficient
flexibility is necessary to embrace shifts or changes in
timing.
not met It is made clear that unless parties reach an agreement in
a timely manner, someone else will impose a decision.
Commitment to Implementation and Monitoring
somewhat met The process fosters a sense of responsibility, ownership,
and commitment to implement the agreement outcome.
somewhat met The process and final agreement include commitments to
implementation and monitoring.
Integration
neutral The process is ethically compatible with fundamental moral
and social values.
Independent Facilitation
not met The negotiation process uses an independent trained
facilitator acceptable to all parties throughout.
somewhat met The facilitator demonstrates neutrality, communicative
competen